[Nicksil]

>For the average user out there, the fact is, most people only care about privacy when there's a breach/outage/scandal of some kind. Otherwise, the average person is not going to have "zomg fb is spyware" on their mind.

Because they don't know.

Like every industry, there are practices involved to which the layman is oblivious. It is important to remind ourselves that the reason the majority of users aren't vocalizing their concerns with these unsavory practices isn't because they don't care but because they don't know.

[bitcrazy]

The 'not knowing' part happens when the outrage is then transferred to any app which does integrate the FB SDK (like zoom). We as developers have sortof taken for granted that the FB/Google/etc SDKs can do no evil. Maybe that attitude should change, because public opinion certainly has.

[Nicksil]

>The 'not knowing' part happens when the outrage is then transferred to any app which does integrate the FB SDK (like zoom).

Sorry, I'm lost here. Can you elaborate?

>We as developers have sortof taken for granted that the FB/Google/etc SDKs can do no evil. Maybe that attitude should change, because public opinion certainly has.

Previously, you mentioned

>If apps start charging money, there would be a significant drop in the # of average user installs. Then the app would only make money off of privacy focused users, which is comparatively small.

I don't have any reason to believe sales would lessen if a formerly "free" application began charging. The difference, however, I have no idea. You mention "significant" which is, of course, relative.

It isn't difficult to see the incentive at work in this scenario:

a) I could charge a nominal fee for use of my software, foregoing the unsavory practices discussed in this thread, and make X amount of money.

b) I could sell my user out and potentially make more than X amount of money. How much more? I don't know, but more.

Is that what it comes down to?